Dr Rick

From <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html" target="_blank">talkorigins.org</a>:

Dr Rick

The tale of creation includes the readily deniable and unfactual assertions that talking snakes eat dust, knowledge can be gained by consuming certain fruits, and day and night existed on Earth before the Sun.

Immutable, faith-based beliefs that cannot be modified are not scientific.

You Betcha

From the anatomy which is consistent with the ability of human speech.

Mageth

You are just describing a different type of turtle. Perhaps the original created turtle that all other turtles came from.

Oh, but this "different type of turtle" is quite unlike "turtles as we have always known them." It has characteristics left over from its non-turtle ancestors that have been lost in the subsequent evolution of the various species of turtles.

And you have apparently ignored my second link, which diesn't surprise me, because it includes a lot of real science that you probably can't handle.

And here is another link, the <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~biochemborg/KLOB/webpages/turtle1.htm" target="_blank">shell game</a>.

A quote:

Studies of development (ontogeny), evolutionary history and relationships (phylogeny), and functional analysis combine to support a common ancestry of turtles with other reptiles, functional similarity of turtles with other reptiles, and a plausible evolutionary pathway from generalized reptile to a specialized turtle. Rather than posing a dilemma for the evolutionary biologist, the turtle is a prime example of how a commitment to a new adaptive strategy can have a far-reaching impact upon a whole lineage of animals.

No special creation is needed to explain this accomplishment, however. Only a shift in developmental processes to accommodate a commitment to external armor is needed. There is no fundamental reorganization of form or function which is not associated with the development of the turtle's shell.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by You Betcha:
<strong>From the anatomy which is consistent with the ability of human speech.</strong>

Couls you give details of Neanderthal anatomy that show they were not only capable of speech, but of human speech?

What is the difference between speech and human speech, anyway?

You Betcha

So what led you to the conclusion that it has non-turtle ancestors, and why were they lost?

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by You Betcha:
<strong>A higher consciousness is a quality considered distinctive of man or woman, mankind.</strong>

You said "qualities" earlier; now you post only one quality. Are there more?

Could you give details of this "higher consciousness"? For example, what are we "conscious" of? Is there such a thing as a "lower consciousness"? If so, what is the difference between "higher" and "lower"? If not, why add the "higher" part?

And I'm curious as to who, besides you, considers "a higher consciousness" to be a quality distinctive of humankind. Is this is a widespread creationist belief?

Mageth

From the anatomy which is consistent with the ability of human speech.

So then, from the time you were conceived until you were a couple of years old, you were not truly human (FYI, our anatomy that makes us fully capable of human speech is not fully developed until we're a couple of years old)?

And are parrots, minahs and other birds, which have anatomy that allows them to mimic human speech quite well, partly human?

Daggah

You Betcha, do you have any intention of looking at the pictures I posted, or are you avoiding them?

You Betcha

I do not have my information with me now, but there is a part of the anatomy which allows humans, people, mankind to speak differently than animals.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: You Betcha ]</p>